Ex Parte Queseth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13390393 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/390,393 02/14/2012 Olav Queseth 0111-016/P33577US2 8421
113648 7590 12/21/2016
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7999
EXAMINER
LEE, CHI HO A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLAY QUESETH and MUHAMMAD KAZMI
Appeal 2016-001298
Application 13/390,393
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, ADAM J. PYONIN and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal the Final Rejection of claims 1—10, 12—25, and 27—
47 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4—5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm-in-part.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “methods, systems, devices and software
associated with relays and relay links in radiocommunications systems.”
Specification, paragraph 1.
Appeal 2016-001298
Application 13/390,393
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method performed by a network node in a radio
communication system, the method comprising:
determining a bandwidth for each of multiple links to be
created in a relay node, based on one or more of characteristics
of at least one frequency band over which the relay node
operates, a traffic load on relay node links, deployment
scenarios, which includes indoor, outdoor or dense urban, and a
type of the relay node, which includes a fixed relay, a movable
relay or a wireless terminal acting as a relay; and
transmitting a signal toward the relay node, the signal
including information about the bandwidth determined for each
of multiple links to be created in the relay node,
wherein, the relay node is prompted to create the
multiple links using the information.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—8, 12—19, 22—34, 37-44, 46, and 47 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saifullah (U.S. Patent
Application Publication Number 2008/0117854 A1; published May 22,
2008) and Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0113884
Al; published May 10, 2012). Final Rejection 2—3.
Claims 9, 10, 20, 21, 35, 36, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saifullah. Final Rejection 3.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 15, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
November 9, 2015), the Answer (mailed September 10, 2015) and the Final
Rejection (mailed November 6, 2014) for the respective details. We have
2
Appeal 2016-001298
Application 13/390,393
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
Appellants contend the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1,
14, 27, and 37 was substantially altered in the Examiner’s Answer compared
to the obviousness rejection presented in the Final Rejection. Reply Brief 1.
The Examiner originally relied upon Saifullah’s paragraph 84 and Park’s
paragraphs 87—89 in the obviousness rejection to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See Final Rejection 2. However, in the Answer,
the Examiner newly cited Saifullah’s paragraph 67 and Park’s paragraph 48
to support the obviousness rejection of the independent claims. Answer 3.
The Examiner finds:
Saifullah reference in [0067] discloses that allocation
message indicates bandwidth allocation for RS-MS link, MS-RS,
and RS-BS backhaul link. Hence, the bandwidth is determined
by the BS for each of the links to be created in the relay node.
What was lacking in Saifullah reference was determining
the bandwidth based on the traffic load. This teaching was found
in the Park reference whereby the bandwidth in the relay node
was determined based on the traffic load.
Answer 5.
Appellants argue:
Examiner’s Answer incorrectly asserts that Saifullah’s
paragraph [0067] refers to links “to be created” in the relay node.
Saifullah’s RS->MS link, MS->RS link and RS>BS link have
been created and are used for transmitting messages 620, 622,
624, 626, 628 and 630, before message 634 is transmitted on the
BS->RS link. Thus, Saifullah’s bandwidth allocation does not
refer to links to be created, but to existing (already created) links.
Reply Brief 2.
3
Appeal 2016-001298
Application 13/390,393
Appellants indicate support for the “to be created” claim limitation is
found in paragraphs 51, 55—63, and 89 of the originally filed Specification.
Appeal Brief 2. Upon review of the Specification, however, we find there is
nothing cited within the paragraphs relied upon by Appellants to support the
“to be created” claim limitation that would patentably distinguish the
limitation over the Saifullah’s bandwidth allocation for links to be created.1
Reply Brief 2—3. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ argument
persuasive.
Appellants further argue that Park’s paragraph 48 fails to allocate
resources to each relay among the plural relays. Reply Brief 3. We do not
find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the Examiner relied upon
Park to disclose “the bandwidth in the relay node was determined based on
the traffic load” and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use traffic load as a factor in allocating resources
in as many relays as required. See Answer 3, 5. We sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 27, and 37, as well as
1 See, for example, Specification, paragraph 51 (“These, and other
deficiencies of conventional relay techniques are addressed by these
embodiments. For example, embodiments described herein include, among
other things, identifiers for configuring and reporting bandwidths, methods
in network node(s) for selecting relay bandwidths, methods in network
node(s) for configuring a relay node to operate on selected bandwidths,
methods in network node(s) for configuring a relay to report its bandwidth
capability, methods in relay nodes for reporting their bandwidth capability to
the network, methods in network node(s) for reporting relay bandwidth
information to other nodes, methods in network node(s) for using relay
bandwidths for network management and planning, and methods of
bandwidth configuration and reporting in multi-hop relays.”).
4
Appeal 2016-001298
Application 13/390,393
dependent claims 3—8, 12, 13, 16—19, 22—25, 29—34, 39-44, 46, and 47 not
argued separately.
Appellants argue the obviousness rejection fails to set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness relative to the features of claims 2, 15, 28, and 38.
Appeal Brief 8. The Examiner finds, “Re Claims 2, 15, 28, 38, refer to
claim 1.” Final Rejection 2; Answer 3. We find Appellants’ argument
persuasive and reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 15,
28, and 38.
Appellants argue:
[Cjlaims 9, 10, 20, 21, 35, 36 and 45 (which depend from claim
1, 14, 27 and 37, respectively) are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Saifullah. Since
independent claims 1, 14, 27 and 37 are rejected as allegedly
being rendered obvious by Saifullah and Park, claims 9, 10, 20,
21, 35, 36, and 45 cannot be rendered obvious by Saifullah only.
Appeal Brief 5.
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The same rejection was
repeated in the Answer (page 4) as was cited in the Final Rejection (page 3)
and, therefore, we find that this was not a typographical error. The
independent claims were rejected based upon the combination of both
Saifullah and Park and, therefore, the rejection of the dependent claims must
incorporate Park is order to establish or present a prima facie case of
obviousness. We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 9,
10, 20,21,35, 36, and 45.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 12, 13, 14,
16-19, 22-25, 27, 29-34, 37, 39-44, 46, and 47 is affirmed.
5
Appeal 2016-001298
Application 13/390,393
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 9, 10, 15, 20, 21,
28, 35, 36, 38, and 45 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6